Science
is an important component for the strength of America and for the well
being of her people. Science is the mother that gives birth to the
technology that makes our economy robust and our military strong.
Science improves our health and enables us to see our world in ways
never before envisioned, uplifting spirits and boosting national
prestige. But for the past four decades, despite ever-increasing science
budgets, American science has continued to decline toward third-world
status. Why? Because fundamental mistakes underlie the methodology by
which the U.S. Government supports science.

Before World War II there was very little government funding of science, but
that changed because of war-time necessities. In 1951, the U.S. National Science
Foundation (NSF) was established to provide support for post-World War II
scientific research. The methodology for administrating science-funding,
invented in the early 1950s by NSF, has been adopted essentially unchanged by
virtually all subsequent U.S. Government funding agencies, such as the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and the U.S. Department of Energy
(DOE). The problem is this: That methodology is flawed and those flaws have been
gradually undermining, corrupting, and trivializing American science for
decades. Here I disclose the principal flaws and point the way for the President
of the United States to correct them.

NSF Flaw
#1

Statement of Flaw #1:

Proposals for scientific funding are generally
reviewed by “anonymous peer reviewers”. NSF invented the concept of “peer
review”, wherein a scientist’s competitors would review and evaluate
his/her/their proposal for funding, and that the reviewers’ identities would be
concealed. The idea of using anonymous peer reviewers must have seemed like an
administrative stroke of genius as the process was adopted by virtually all
government funding-agencies which followed and was adopted almost universally by
editors of scientific journals. But no one seems to have considered the lessons
of history with respect to secrecy.

Secrecy is certainly necessary in matters of national security and defense. But
in science does secrecy and concomitant freedom from accountability really
encourage truthfulness? If secrecy did in fact lead to greater truthfulness,
secrecy would be put to great advantage in the courts. Courts have in fact
employed secrecy – during the infamous Spanish Inquisition and in virtually
every totalitarian dictatorship – and the result is always the same:
Unscrupulous individuals falsely denounce others and corruption abounds.

The application of anonymity and freedom from accountability in the peer review
system gives unfair advantage to those who would unjustly berate a competitor’s
proposal for obtaining funding for research. The perception – real or imagined –
that some individuals would do just that has had a chilling effect, forcing
scientists to become defensive, adopting only the consensus-approved viewpoint
and refraining from discussing anything that might be considered as a challenge
to other’s work or to the funding agency’s programs. And that is not what
science is all about.

First-step Correction of Flaw #1:

The President of the
United States could sign an Executive Order forbidding the U.S. Government from
engaging in anonymous peer review and forbidding the U. S. Government from doing
business with organizations that do.

NSF Flaw
#2

Statement of Flaw #2:

NSF invented the concept of scientists
proposing specific projects for funding, which has led to the trivialization and
bureaucratization of science. Why so? The flaw is that it is completely
impossible to say beforehand what one will discover, which has never before been
discovered, and to say what one will do to discover it. The consequence has been
the proposing of trivial projects often with non-scientific end-results, such as
the wide-spread practice of making models based upon assumptions, instead of
making discoveries. Further, proposal “evaluation” is often a guise to engage in
exclusionary and ethically questionable, anti-competitive practices. Moreover,
bureaucrat “program managers” decide which projects are suitable for the
programs that they design. There is no incentive to make important discoveries
or to challenge existing ideas; quite the contrary.

First-step Correction of Flaw #2:

Science funding should be based, not upon proposals of what scientists say they
will do, but should be based upon the scientists’ successful track record of
making important discoveries. In other words, support scientists, not proposed
projects; give scientists the freedom to chart their own paths with the
survival-incentive being to make important discoveries. Instead of managing
programs, agency officials could be charged with identifying important new
discoveries and helping to facilitate access to government-funded laboratories
and repositories. Of course, large-scale projects, such as the construction of a new telescope,
would continue to be proposed much as at present, but without anonymous
reviewers. A mechanism should be put in place to support new, promising
scientists, perhaps as part of their education, to provide support for a period
of a few years so they could attempt to establish a track record of making
discoveries.

NSF Flaw
#3

Statement of Flaw #3:

NSF began the now wide-spread practice of making
grants to universities and other non-profit institutions with scientists,
usually faculty members, being classed as “principal investigators”. The
consequence of that methodology is that there is no direct legal responsibility
or liability for the scientists’ conduct. As a consequence, all too often with
impunity scientists misrepresent the state of scientific knowledge and engage in
anti-competitive practices, including the black-listing of other capable,
experienced scientists. University and institution administrators, when made
aware of such conduct, in my experience, do nothing to correct the mal-conduct,
having neither the expertise nor, with tenure, the perception of authority or
responsibility. The result is that American taxpayers’ money is wasted on a
grand scale and the science produced is greatly inferior to what it might be.

First-step Correction of Flaw #3:

Consistent with the concept of
supporting scientists based upon past performance, scientists should be treated
individually as U.S. Government contractors, subject to Federal Acquisition
Regulations. This methodology would put all government-funded scientists on an
equal footing, with the scientists themselves being legally accountable for
their actions. Such a plan would not preclude scientists from making individual
contractual arrangements with parent institutions to provide overhead
facilities.

NSF Flaw
#4

Statement of Flaw #4:

NSF began the now wide-spread
practice of the government paying publication costs, “page charges”, for
scientific articles in journals run by for-profit companies or by
special-interest science organizations. Because these publishers demand
ownership of copyrights, taxpayers who want to obtain an electronic copy must
pay, typically $40.00, for an article whose underlying research and publication
costs were already paid with taxpayer dollars. Moreover, commercial and
protectionist practices often subvert the free exchange of information, which
should be part of science, making the publication of contradictions and new
advances extremely difficult. Furthermore, publishers have little incentive or
mechanism to insist upon truthful representations. For example, in ethical
science, published contradictions should be cited, but with the extant system it
is common practice to ignore contradictions which may call into question the
validity of what is being published. The net result is that unethical scientists
frequently deceive the general public and the scientific community and waste
taxpayer money on questionable endeavors.

First-step Correction of Flaw #4:

The U.S. Government should consider establishing an e-journal
with a specific template as the sole publication outlet for government supported
science and technological results, which would be open as well to
non-government-supported research publication. Therein each researcher would be
able to publish his/her/their research results without any review, other than
internal reviews and standards possibly imposed by the individual’s respective
institution.

In addition to adapting certain strategies from existing
e-journals, such as links to research data, the proposed new system may contain
unique elements, such as templates for specific comments from the posting
author(s). The questions below provide some possible examples:

“What is the importance and uniqueness of this report?”
The answer to this question may be of value to government administrators, to
other scientists in the field, to commercial organizations, to the public and to
the media. But there is the additional benefit of helping to bring into focus
the idea that success should relate to the importance and uniqueness of the
work, and not to the number of papers published.

“What approaches were tried but did not work?” Scientific
reports rarely address this question, but the answer provides useful information
that may help to keep others from repeating fruitless activities, or it may
allow others who have different insights to glimpse new paths to try.

“What are the competing and conflicting ideas?” Actually,
this information should be part of any good scientific report. But, over the
past several decades, either out of fear of anonymous reviewers or to keep an
unbreakable lock on research funds, it is not unusual for scientists to
completely ignore contradictory work, which is poor science that can lead to
wasted resources and missed opportunities.

“What are the lessons learned?” Scientific reports rarely
address this question, but in any truly pioneering endeavor the answer to that
question helps individuals focus on improving their techniques and
methodologies.

Many benefits are to be gained through implementing the above
described publication system as the primary publication outlet, including:

►A low-cost means to guarantee free access to
research without attempting to force change on the organizations that presently
control access, such as publishing companies that charge fees both for
publishing and for copies of reports they have published

►A means for rapid publication of research results, while
obviating many of the impediments existent in the other, older publication
system, such as the delays caused by reviewers whose intent is to delay or
prevent publication of competitor’s work.

►Help
researchers focus on the important elements of their investigations, rather than
deflecting energy and resources on exaggerated publication.

The prototype primary
publication system suggested above may be readily adapted to the concept
of supporting individuals based upon their track record of important
discoveries, rather than supporting proposals for future projects.
Properly executed, this system provides a level playing field with equal
access, free from exclusionary and anti-competitive, self-interest
opposition. It is a system which can be designed to allow outside
comments and author responses. And, it would save the government money.

Additional
Administrative Initiatives

Administrative Initiatives: Beyond correcting the
above described flaws, the President of the United States can accelerate the
rejuvenation of American science in the following ways:

(1) Champion the exciting ideal that science is about discovery,
about new ideas, about debate and discussion, about new and improved
technologies, about invention and innovation, and about solving America’s
problems – now.

(2) Initiate open competitions to solve specific problems, like a
new efficient process for removing salt from seawater, and unspecific
competitions as well. Sizable cash awards and/or government contracts can be
powerful incentives with the only significant costs being the rewards
themselves.

(3) Set up a series of state-of-the-art laboratories with charters allowing
individual American researchers to request specific measurements. This would
allow the opportunity for new ideas to receive experimental justification and
would serve to boost the economy, creating jobs, and encouraging innovations in
scientific instrumentation.

(4) Critically and questioningly review all existing major government-funded
research endeavors. Will they advance American interests? Are they practical? Is
the potential gain worth the expense? Can the money be spent better in other
endeavors?

For half a century, the U.S. Government, through NSF-instigated
flaws, has been responsible for producing inferior-quality science, often
opposing scientific advances made without government funding, and generally
driving American science toward third-world status. Here I have revealed the
underlying flaws and proposed corrective actions.